Based on the system of 'right place, right time, right speed and right gear', the Roadcraft system of car control is simple but highly effective. Originally taught at Hendon Driving School in 1937, it subsequently reduced the Metropolitan Police's accident rate by over two thirds

In comparison with 'what'? Do you think that the same results would be achieved if the same training was introduced now, with civvie drivers who go through the current L regime?

Which aspects of L training need to be updated, or supplemented with further training?

Based on the system of 'right place, right time, right speed and right gear', the Roadcraft system of car control is simple but highly effective. Originally taught at Hendon Driving School in 1937, it subsequently reduced the Metropolitan Police's accident rate by over two thirds

In comparison with 'what'? Do you think that the same results would be achieved if the same training was introduced now, with civvie drivers who go through the current L regime?

Which aspects of L training need to be updated, or supplemented with further training?

I watch, and listen, to L drivers from time to time and it surprises me that so many are still taught to change gear through the box rather than across it.This practice results in drivers (IMO) who arrive at a hazard in whichever gear the car happens to be in and attempt to negotiate it that way.It is a practice I never taught and thought it had gone out of fashion decades ago.

If I remember correctly before the introduction of IPSGA or its equivalent back in the day, police drivers were involed in an accident, on average, every 8,000 miles, following training, accidents happened on average every 40,000 miles - it appears to have worked for them!

The basic "L" test is just that, basic, my wife often remarks that following her passing the "L" test I said "now I'll teach you how to drive". I would suggest something along the lines of having passed the "L" test the individual is given a period of time, maybe upto 12 months during which time they will gain experience and further driving skills sufficient to be equiped to take a further test (maybe at a level short of the IAM basic test) passing which they are awarded a substantive driving licence. Failure to pass would mean they were only allowed to drive when accompanied by a "substantive" licence holder.

Re-tests would be mandatorty in the event of 6 points on the licence or involment in a "significant" your fault accident.

However, there are various conditions, such as ADHD and DCD which might adversely affect driving. Very sharp think end of the wedge if you go there, though . . . are you sure there are no quirks in your personality etc which might catch you out? You could add 'physical' onto the list, so reaction time, colour vision, depth perception, peripheral vision, night vision, dexterity . . .

However, there are various conditions, such as ADHD and DCD which might adversely affect driving. Very sharp think end of the wedge if you go there, though . . . are you sure there are no quirks in your personality etc which might catch you out? You could add 'physical' onto the list, so reaction time, colour vision, depth perception, peripheral vision, night vision, dexterity . . .

But the concept of "driving is a right, not a privilege" is somehow engraved in people. People talk about money being the limiting factor for driving (lesson cost/test cost/insurance cost). Road safety seems to have bottomed out at around 1700 Ks a year; maybe to keep their jobs (till autonomous vehicles make everyone in road safety/driver training redundant) the higher level processes related to driving should be explored.

Theory Test is really not fit for purpose - they "know" the answer but have no concept of why it's the answer. The funniest are the ones who say "I only failed by one!" when they got 42/50. They failed by eight.Bring back the Examiner asking HC questions at the end of the Practical Test!

However, that was 80 years ago, now the situation and results might not be the same.

titian wrote: The basic "L" test is just that, basic, my wife often remarks that following her passing the "L" test I said "now I'll teach you how to drive". I would suggest something along the lines of having passed the "L" test the individual is given a period of time, maybe upto 12 months during which time they will gain experience and further driving skills sufficient to be equiped to take a further test (maybe at a level short of the IAM basic test) passing which they are awarded a substantive driving licence. Failure to pass would mean they were only allowed to drive when accompanied by a "substantive" licence holder.

The lines are showing how age and on-road experience reduce accidents, not further training - it might do, but that's not what happens for the the majority of new drivers who don't take it.

Kinnear et al. (2007)• Novice drivers with more than 1000 miles of driving showed similar physiological anticipatory response to hazards as experienced drivers (video HP test)

So it's back to the same question: what safety-related content can 'advanced' training provide that the current L system, with subsequent on-road experience, can't?

The AA admits that many insurers are refusing to give discounts for Pass Plus. A spokesman says: 'Pass Plus has got a bad name. Quite simply, the claims figures show that there is no difference between drivers who have Pass Plus and those who don't.'